You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘iran’ tag.

This Drumpf gambit vis a vis Qatar is probably really about cutting off the lifeline to Hamas. I wonder if we are seeing the opening stages to the Netanyahu final solution in Gaza! (Which Brendan O’Connell has been talking about extensively on his Youtube channel.) Now that Netanyahu has his shoe shine boy, and lackey at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue (and a Mossad asset Kushner with such an extensive role of prominence/uber-portfolio)…

Hamas is being wise though, if they (the Zionists, the Gulf potentates and Netanyahu’s lackey Drumpf) are successful in turning the screws to at least successfully cow Qatar, they are going back to Iran — realizing their Sunni brethren as basically fakers at least IMHO Iran is a much better bet for them. In fact, I think relations between the two dropped to rock bottom when Morsi was in power, but since Sisi’s coup I think they’ve understood — don’t know what you’ve got ’til it’s gone, essentially — and have slowly been gravitating back to the initial Axis of Resistance (Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran).

The Drumpf Middle East strategy looks doomed to me! Those who still believe in the consummate fraudster, sociopath and megalomaniac Drumpf, should probably begin to consider/reconsider now how Drump claimed ludicrously during the campaign that he knew more about ISIS than the generals! I’m not the world’s greatest Middle Eastern affairs expert, but it’s pretty clear to me what they (the Drumpf gang) are doing in the Middle East! And that is nothing about the financial/root sources of ISIS terrorism (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE)! In truth entities such as Hezbollah and Iran should be a part of the coalition to crush ISIS, instead the gang that can’t shoot straight is ginning up “Flynn facts” and “alternative facts” about Iran and its Middle Eastern allies… And conducting dubious raids in Yemen, killing innocents and children — and towards achieving what end exactly?

I don’t see what contacting the devils in Congress is going to accomplish. As far as I’m concerned Hezbollah and Iran are the only organizations in the world that can actually do anything! The Sunni Arab leadership is all sold out, Al-Sissy is a limp-wristed trollop! I’ve heard reports that Hamas has supported the people in the Sinai against him, which if true is a mistake, Sissy is still a piece of vermin though in my book! The Sunni Arab “leaders”, it pains me to call them, would put their own people up for slaughter to appease the Zionists! So obviously, they are not going to do anything for the long suffering Palestinian Gazans!

For the first time — I’ve not been a believer in this, I can see how the Arab “leadership” would just roll over and allow Greater Israel to happen! And whatever atrocities the Zionist rogue entity commits, the Zionist occupied West will just stand idly by “observing”! And furthermore, they’ll just let Netanyahu and his neo-fascist minions commit all manner of barbarism/butchery and, in fact, they’ll even supply him! And so additionally, they’ll just, as i say, stand idly beside him — which indeed translates to at least for all intents and purposes — to essentially being 100% fully behind him!

Hamas has an office in Qatar, which is the residence of the chairman. I know that the Emir of Qatar was giving them money in the past, but I don’t know if that is still ongoing. Although Hamas was a close ally with Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria at one time; I believe that since Hamas came out against Assad that alliance has frayed. Syed Hassan Nasrallah — I found quite surprising, has come out during this current bloodbath and said that Hezbollah is standing 100% behind the Hamas resistance! Hezbollah won’t do anything unless the Islamic Republic gives them the say-so in my opinion, though. Iran is in negotiations presently, and so I don’t expect Hezbollah to do anything because I think that those negotiations might definitely be sacrificed by Hezbollah taking any meaningful/substantive military action.

Much as the Palestinian/Gazan people make a distinction between the elected political side of Hamas and the militant wing of it, I absolutely think that Hezbollah’s words are in support of the latter, for certainty. The known tensions between political Hamas and Hezbollah, I would think, are still very much at play between the two resistance movements, but at the same time with a common enemy one can only imagine the comradely ties — difficult to break — that the two sides have developed over their common struggle’s duration.

The Islamic Jihad is the only Palestinian resistance group that I’m aware of that has an outside state sponsor. Iran and Hezbollah are non-Palestinian supporters of this grouping/movement. I believe that Hamas is still getting Iranian Fajr-5 rockets, but I don’t know if they are provided to them by Iran, or if perhaps there is some intermediary from which they are getting them. I certainly don’t think that Hamas are receiving any rockets from KSA, Qatar, or any of the other Gulf Arabs.

The Iranian-Hamas relationship has splintered — and not been repaired, at least since it became realistically possible that Mohamed Morsi was going to attack the Baath Party ruled Syria (and probably even earlier). A nation that is of course a close ally of the Islamic Republic, as well as one that had been — past tense — also a close ally of Hamas too.

There was an interesting story out a while back, that suggested that Bandar Bush has already threatened Putin to attack the Sochi Olympics. The Saudis are basically Zionists so far as I can tell. They don’t care one whit about the Palestinians, and they would just let Israel, do a wholesale extermination on them all. For them, that would be all fine and good!

Defenders of the Palestinians have been Hezbollah and Iran. Qatar was working on buying off Hamas, which I think they were largely successful in. I think the new Emir was brought in, because it’s believed he’d be more deferential to the Saudis in the world. Not sure what the father was trying to do, seemed like overtake the role of the Saudis. Which they and Iran kind of fight to influence Muslim Middle Eastern groups and countries — get them under their thumb.

I should definitely preface this piece/meditation by saying that I support Bashar Al-Assad against the devils Qatar, NATO, Israel, various Salafi conglomerations and KSA. However, I find some recent comments by President Assad to be quite strange. Assad has told us that what we are observing — in the coup d’etat in Egypt, is essentially the fall of political Islam. A close ally of Bashar Al-Assad’s, though is political Islamist, of course. IRI (Iranian Islamic Republic) as per my understanding, is a current manifestation of political Islamism/Islam. The Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, the Wahhabis, Salafis and such don’t support it, of course, because they are Takfiris against the Shii!

Maybe Assad means in the Arab world, since the Iranians are, of course, Persian. But Hezbollah who helped Assad defeat the Salafis, and mercenaries in the key battle of Qusair; originally wanted Lebanon to be like Iran. In Lebanon you have a nation — the size of the US state of Connecticut essentially — that contains virtually every group that exists in the Middle East (Kurds, Christians, Druze, Sunni and Shia Muslims)! So pretty much a non-starter proposition! If one wants to read through this long interview, one can see how Assad views the Muslim Brotherhood as puppets of the West, essentially, and a very divisive group in the Middle East. Iran being mainly Shiite, does represent a very different kind of political Islam. And one where they are allied with the secular Baathist Assad, and also with Hezbollah (though a political Islamist grouping/formation one that supports a multi-confessional state of Lebanon).

The Iranian Islamic Republic is unequivocally a more enlightened political Islam, than its Sunni correspondent groups and organizations, I think. And perhaps this has something to do with there being only four majority Shiite nations in the world: Bahrain, Iran, Iraq and Azerbaijan. And so thusly there are not even many nation-states at all in the world, where bringing a political Shia Islamist government to power has much prospect/practicability, in fact!

Prior to Syria becoming a nation of great international attention, I had thought that Assad was pursuing a lot of neoliberal reform there. Something I believe has been done in many areas/cases, but I am not sure as to how great an extent that has occurred. I am happy to see a quote such as this though from President Assad. Showing that he still has a lot allegiance/influence to the best of Arab nationalist credentials, “Our original Arab identity represents the amalgamation of civilizations of thousands of years and is hence built on moderation in all aspects: social, cultural, political and religious. When this identity is being torn in any of the two directions I mentioned, the result will be these foci of extremism you mentioned. This is my greatest concern; extremism in following the West is as destructive to our identity as religious extremism and they both lead to turbulence, which is what we are witnessing in Syria and other countries. This is not exclusive to Syria, but perhaps the element of external interference in Syria was stronger than in other countries.”

And Assad again on the tradition/revolution that he represents in the Arab Republic of Syria, ” the real revolution of 1963….was a revolution that empowered the country, society and human values. It promoted science and knowledge by building thousands of schools, it brought light to the Urban and rural areas of Syria by building electricity lines and networks, it strengthened the economy by providing job opportunities according to competencies. It supported the wider foundations of society including farmers, labourers and skilled-workers. The revolution at the time built an army indoctrinated in national values that fought the fiercest of battles, it stood unwavering in those difficult circumstances and it won in the 1973 war. We are now perhaps enduring the most challenging circumstances in which the army has shown that its revolutionary foundations and ideological values are as strong as ever.”

Self-styled Latin America expert Nicolas Kozloff has only just recently attacked the eminently admirable Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa. In a column for America Online’s Huffington Post Kozloff describes the laudable Ecuadorian leader as “dubious”, and with (according to Kozloff) “backward tendencies”. Kozloff is unequivocally immensely dubious, and what his tendencies are I won’t even venture to say, but to attack such a genuine article populist/progressive leader as Correa is certainly deeply wrong — and an egregiously disagreeable thing for this Ecuadorian “aficionado” in my opinion to say.

Additionally, Kozloff attacks Correa for his policies vis a vis the Ecuadorian media. In contradistinction, I find these slanders against Correa to be akin to those leveled against Hugo Chavez in relation to RCTV (Radio Caracas Television). In that case of course Chavez had closed a station, that was complicit in taking part in a violent attempted coup d’etat against him! Noam Chomsky even once commented on that particular incidence/situation. And the noted linguist and political philosopher, opined that if an analogous event had taken place in the US; that the principals of the station would have, incontrovertibly, been tried and put to death!

The Real News Network examined some of the purported claims out there that Correa is heavy-handed, and unfair with the Ecuadorian media. Finding them wanting, and that Correa has actually opened up more space for exploration, investigation, heterogeneity and diversity in the Ecuadorian press! Prior to Correa out of seven private networks, five of them were owned by banks. Correa made it illegal for banks to any longer own television networks, and today there are four public networks in Ecuador and three private ones.

Correa questions the entire “quintessential” model of what has become known as a free press in the United States. Considering it to actually be a model of private networks in the communications business that are more interested in making a profit, rather than adhering closely to the ideal fundamental principles of journalism, and diligently informing the general public/citizens. Moreover, Correa finds that the private ownership of media will ineluctably lead to stories/investigations presenting themselves that will pose a conflict of interest to the ownership. And in Correa’s view the ownership will, of course, side with its interest — over the public one — in each and every case!

We have seen the reality of this in the not too distant past in the United States. As the Fox News Channel acted as an apologist for, and played down their owner’s (Rupert Murdoch’s) phone hacking scandal in the UK. In fact, the British Parliament even rendered a verdict that the Aussie tabloid monger Murdoch was unfit to run a major business! Something that I don’t think was even reported whatsoever/at all on Fox. Nor was it widely reported in the US mainstream press! One of Murdoch’s gutter/yellow journalism tabloids, the News of the World, even unconscionably hacked the phone of a missing (murdered) 13-year old girl. Something not known at the time, and her family has even said that this had given them false hope that their daughter may have still been alive! (Again this was not reported by Fox, or widely whatsoever in the US so-called free and “mainstream” press.) MSNBC when General Electric was its parent company, did not really make a lot of the issue of its owner’s failure to pay any taxes in 2010, although it is ostensibly a left-liberal oriented network; promoting higher taxes on stateless global jet-setting corporations like General Electric, rather than common “working stiffs”!

Returning to Ecuador and President Correa, however, Correa has furthermore responded to attacks upon his media strategy, by asking why a nation that ostensibly touts press freedom, is guilty of the torture of Private Bradley Manning!!? (A man who, undeniably, made available a good deal of information to the US and the Western so-called free press.) Journalists are, of course, supposed to protect their sources — if not derelict in their chosen craft — yet a source that provided major fodder for US and Western media, has not received sufficient indignation/outrage; certainly, in said media over of his crass, barbaric and inhuman treatment!

I must admit that I have not followed Nicolas Kozloff’s work very assiduously, but I do believe; however, that he fancies himself a supporter of the Bolivarian Revolution. Perhaps Kozloff only supports Venezuelan progressivism/revolutionary change, whilst he condemns the other ALBA (Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas) nations, though! Support for the Bolivarian Revolution certainly does not equate to support for every nation that is a part of ALBA, but Chavez was a “pan-Latin Americanist” undoubtedly, I’d say. And he was not only instrumental in the germination of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas, of course, but the CELAC (Community of Latin American and Caribbean States) organization as well! And CELAC, in fact, includes amongst its ranks such right-of-center Latin American governments as: Chile, Guatemala, Honduras, Paraguay, and Colombia. Colombia a nation with an abysmal human rights record, and a close ally of the US and the West — both of which, irrefutably, have innumerable “backward tendencies”.

Other attacks that Kozloff levels upon Correa are his allegiances with Iran and Belarus. Whatever Kozloff thinks of the human rights, civil liberties, and democracy (or lack thereof) in these countries. Both countries are, in truth, prominent nations insofar as nations attempting to strive for sovereignty on this Earth! And moreover, these are two insurgent nations that have been critical players in attempting to reinvigorate the — for far too long lying virtually entirely dormant — NAM (Non-Aligned Movement). In a world dominated by Machiavellian, and wholly unethical powers; a panoply of options, I don’t think, are afforded to most states. And particularly developing ones that are “seditious” and/or “mutinous” nations, and even nations who would submit to “brazenly” — not follow the path that is laid out for them — and to plumb go against the grain! Nicaragua is currently mulling a plan for China to build a Panama-like canal. Perhaps Kozloff does wholly condemn this (I cannot of course intuit his positions/views)? China is undeniably a nation whose human rights record could, of course, be examined quite strongly.

Venezuela also has good relations, as well as cooperation agreements, with both the nations of Belarus and the Islamic Republic of Iran! In fact, I believe that most of the ALBA nations do as well. Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko was; in fact, the only European head of state, to give the late President Chavez the dignity of attending his funeral. And Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sat next to Raul Castro at the deceased President Chavez’s funeral service! President Ahmadinejad also received flak for hugging Chavez’s grieving mother at said funeral, which many in the Islamic Republic consider to be haram. Ahmadinejad additionally stated at the time of the death of President Chavez that he would return one day with Jesus Christ, and the Imam Madhi — a significant figure in the theology of Shia Islam.

I am not arguing that Correa has a spotless, virginal, or unmitigatedly pristine record! No indeed, that’s not what I’m arguing at all. But neither did FDR, Charles De Gaulle, Gamal Abdel Nasser, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Hugo Chavez or the original incarnation of the Sandinistas! Certainly, we do not want to be apologists for every action that the Correa government/administration engages or partakes in! But a dubious figure, and moreover a disreputable individual — replete with backward tendencies? I’m deeply sorry Monsieur Kozloff, but unequivocally and rather indisputably no.

Hamas was based in Damascus, and now it has moved to Qatar. Moneybags Emir of Qatar, Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, has put a lot of bread into Gaza — an investment project worth hundreds of millions of dollars. The Gulf Arabs are knaves, though, routinely in line with U$terrorist/UK/NATO, and not to be trusted.

Hamas has long ago abandoned Assad. Their long term allies Hezbollah and Iran; however, did not do so. And moreover, it was Iranian made Fajr-5 rockets that aided the Gazan resistance in the latest Israeli barbarian attack/campaign on the Gazan people. Hamas is real stupid to do what they are doing, if Assad can capably thwart the bloodthirsty imperialists. Assad has been — and would have continued to be a much better ally to them than Qatar, or the other Gulf Arab states in my opinion. But probably now they have burned that bridge forever. Qatar and Turkey prodded Hamas to abandon one of their Axis of Resistance allies (the others Iran and Hezbollah), but at least one Hamas official acknowledged when vacating, “We have to go. But you have to understand that we have a sense of gratitude to this regime. They did a lot for us. And there are a lot of intimate relations, on a personal level.”

It’s very strange, I don’t fully understand the whole scheme — that’s going on in the Middle East right now — all that well. In Israel Fatah, the only other Arab nationalist entity left other than Assad’s Syria, is given more respect — whilst Hamas is considered to be terrorist. Hamas, for all intents and purposes, is the Muslim Brotherhood, and Morsi, as of yet, has done very little to help them. President Obama has infamously publically stated of Egypt/Morsi, “[we do not] consider [them] an ally… we [don’t] consider them an enemy.” The NATO/Gulf Arab plan seems to be bringing Muslim Brotherhood governments to all of the non-GGC (Bahrain, Kuwait Saudi Arabia, Oman, UAE, Qatar) countries.

I believe that the benighted GCC countries would find secularism as a catalyst for their people demanding more liberties, as opposed to Muslim Brotherhood governments; that would probably be more repressive, though less so when compared to the GCC ones. Additionally, the GCC countries lay claim to being Muslim, so they don’t want a “secular contagion”, I don’t think, in their region also.

The US/NATO aim in the destabilization of Syria, seems to have the intended purpose of upturning the anti-Israel/US Axis of Resistance. Hamas’ status in this axis is, of course, now very nebulous. We should keep in mind, in spite of that, it was the Iranian Fajr-5 rockets; that went through the much-touted, US taxpayer-funded Iron Dome. So on the one hand the bringing down of Assad’s Syria adds up, although, this strange strategy of bringing the Muslim Brotherhood all over the Middle East; meanwhile condemning them in Israel, seems rather perplexing — does it not? My decoder ring, can’t unscrew this irregularly difficult brain teaser, I look forward to reading insight and analyses from other bright minds, however, who can and will do so.

“What’s that old Beach Boys song? Bomb Iran? Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb.”

-Senior Senator from Arizona, John McCain

A nuclear weapon is a weapon that is used, as a deterrent against attack from other countries, nations, and empires. Pakistan is a nation that has already developed nuclear weapons, and there is certainly great potential for a regime that is virulently “anti-American”, and Islamist in nature to come to power there.

The issue of Iran, and the potential of Iran to develop a nuclear munition is all about the Revolution of 1979 (and also about the permanent warfare state and the persistent American “need” for war). When vassal states of the United States empire get uppity, or establish a unique and singular victory, then the United States can become very fervently angry, and continue to insistently hold on to — a petty, time-worn, thoughtless, catty and mean-spirited grudge. It can even not get over such “intolerable” losses, and persist with a fire that rages of a thousand suns.

Need I remind anyone that Israel has a stockpile of anywhere between 150 to 500 nuclear bombs? The answer to this question is, clearly, a Middle East that is free of all WMDs (or at least a nuclear free zone). In late 2011, in fact, the Israeli public was polled, as embracing this enlightened policy (NFZ) by a vote of 64%. Sadly though, the Israeli government has long ago surreptitiously, and unilaterally escalated the situation, and it should, probably, be taken to task; veritably, for all of its manifold, versicolor and innumerable sins. Israel is the nation that should be in question, at present, over its nuclear program, and the Islamic Republic of Iran; as a fact of the matter, should not be the one in the frying pan.

For instance, international law scholar Dr. Francis Boyle has said that all nuclear nations are essentially — from their inception — inherently guilty of the crime to commit a threat of all-inclusive, indiscriminate, far-reaching, and comprehensive extermination of human lives. And furthermore, Israel has also rejected efforts for inspection of its nuclear weapons program, from the sole international nuclear governing authority of their activity (the IAEA). Moreover, Israel, like India and Pakistan, never received any UNSC (United Nations Security Council) sanctions for its nuclear development ambitions.

Therefore, I think that we can clearly see a lack of objectivity in such sanctions, especially considering that Iran (as well as North Korea) did receive these sanctions, in the development of their nuclear programs — in the case of Iran we are, of course, referring to the alleged/intuited development of a nuclear weapons program. In fact, American international affairs scholar, Lawrence Scheinmann, has described the true United States policy towards burgeoning nuclear nation-states/powers as one in which, “…the United States has always opposed the proliferation of nuclear weapons; [however], in cases where this could not be prevented the basic determinant of our attitude, toward the possession of these weapons by other countries is whether the regime is supportive of, or antagonistic to U.S. interests.”

Above and beyond the residually existing rancor, over the removal of the reliably compliant puppet (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi) the United States fancy/pretension is, generally, always looking for additional nations — outside of its primary sphere of influence — to abrade against, and to act in a very belligerent way towards. This ethos is not only about the permanent warfare state (and keeping the wheels greased on the MIC), but simply about — what has already been stated, that is expanding the number of nations that are wholly subordinate to it, and indeed, expanding its overall hegemonical/imperial sphere and reach.

Human rights and other ultra-idealistic (and even utopian ideas and rhetoric) may be applied at times, toward these efforts, but these concerns are actually of no consequence, to the individuals who utter fealty and phony indulgence towards these concepts — via their forked-tongued tropisms, fairy stories, wild musings, anger-filled bombast and extemporaneousness diatribes. Not to say that the human rights of a particular “anti-American” nation-state is never an issue, but it is, certainly, also an issue that pervades a plethora of America’s “finest” client regimes.

When such violations occur in US client nations, the MSM may black out, and/or exhibit little to no interest, at all, towards them. If or when reported, the US State Department will assure its interlocutors that reforms are imminent, that will militate against the purported egregious acts of wrongdoing. One such “reform” occurred in Yemen, where the right-hand man of the former autocratic dictator, came to power via a non-contested “election“. The US State Department, not only signed off on this absurdist and fraudulent “election”, but registered its warm feelings toward the result of such a “reputable”, and notable occurrence/event.

Interestingly enough, virtually all of the reforms proposed in Syria, seem to be met askance by the US State Department. And in contradistinction, in a nation — like the chain of islands, Bahrain — not even an “election” with a single candidate, has, as of yet, been allowed to occur. Still, the US has continued to supply a varying array of dynamic, effective, and potent items, to the (serial human rights violating) monarchical and authoritarian regime. Materiel that United States government insists, are to be used solely, for “external defense” purposes. And moreover, Secretary of State Clinton was only just in Egypt recently (July) where she praised the uber murderous SCAF (Supreme Council of the Armed Forces) military clique for its “virtuous” practices, during the transitional period between the US-backed authoritarian dictator Mubarak, to that of the government of the newly elected President Dr. Mohamed Morsi.

How such widespread, dubious and rank hypocrisy can lead to anything, but a credibility gap between what the United States says, and what it does — simply averts believing! Any rational observer, one would think, must view this, as perhaps the highest priority in reforming world/universal dynamics and, indeed, global international strictures. For America to continually stand on its high horse, and reprimand alleged rogue actors, it must, certainly, face up to the hard truths that it has brought upon itself, and its once highly thought of exterior picture. In not doing so this will inevitably, catapult (and furthermore invariably boomerang) allegations of rogue state — consistently, pointedly and indelibly back — towards the originally progenitor of the term, which is, of course the United States itself.